Senator Kerry was misled about weapons of mass destruction?by Clinton!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
Originally posted by: BDawg
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
"In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior. This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

...and all along I thought Bush had "misled" him, which is one reason he is running for President. Gee, Kerry misled me!
Number of wars started by President Bush - 1
Number of wars started by President Clinton - 0
Number of wars started by President Kerry - 0
you seem to forget that when clinton attacked iraq in 1998 he said he did so with authority from EXISTING UN resolutions in his speech in the same year givin on national television. to quote:

"I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning. "

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently."


questions for dems:

if clinton and all the dems(also france and germany) who supported this act of war on iraq "based on existing un resolutions" why now are they saying we needed another resolution when bush basically finished what clinton started?

how would the "best way to end the threat for once and for all" be if not forcibly removing him for power? what other way would have accomplished this since 11 years of diplomacy failed?

who did economic sanctions hurt the most, the iraqi people or those in power in the government? did 11 years of economic sanctions work effectively?

why were most democrats and many in the UN) oppose invading iraq in 1991 after saddam was ousted from kuwait? why do those same democrats(and nations in the UN) today berate bush sr. for "not finishing the job" when they are the ones responsible for the job not being finished?











 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,413
4,791
126
Originally posted by: alchemize
Why don't we ignore all the "yes, but" quotes and recognize this about Kerry:

1991: Voted No on war in Iraq
Today: Voted Yes.

Discuss :)
IIRC, nobody voted "Yes" to the current War in Iraq. They instead gave Bush a blank cheque to do with as he saw fit.
 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Why did I post it? Because I think the record should reflect that Kerry thought Saddam had WMD long before Bush came to office, yet he said that Bush misled him, which is why he voted for the war...why did you post to this thread?
you do realize your talking to people who follow others who consitantly change thier story in order to tell the fickle what they want to hear when they want to hear it...facts of duplicity do not matter to them.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam?s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq?s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration?s policy towards Iraq, I don?t think there can be any question about Saddam?s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002



 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
this always brings me back to this basic conundrum..

is Bush is such at idiot, how did he fool somebody as smart as Senator Kerry...

and if Senator Kerry is that easily fooled.......
and if all the other Democrats that support the Iraq War resolution where so easily fooled....

 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
this always brings me back to this basic conundrum..

is Bush is such at idiot, how did he fool somebody as smart as Senator Kerry...

and if Senator Kerry is that easily fooled.......
and if all the other Democrats that support the Iraq War resolution where so easily fooled....
They probably never thought that the Dub's Administration would stoop to use the patriotism that enveloped the country after 9/11 to their advantage to promote the Dub's and the Neocons excellent adventure in Iraq by misleading the American public regarding WMDs.

 

tallest1

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2001
3,474
0
0
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
this always brings me back to this basic conundrum..

is Bush is such at idiot, how did he fool somebody as smart as Senator Kerry...
Maybe by pulling lies out of his [intelligence's] ass and presenting them as fact.

How about this: If Jesus H. Christ were to come to the deciples(sp) with the 10 commandments, would their first thought be to check its credibility? I'm not saying Bush is Jesus (far from it) but as far as the political-power spectrum goes, hes high up there.


selective reading seems to be the keyword for this thread
Bingo!
 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
this always brings me back to this basic conundrum..

is Bush is such at idiot, how did he fool somebody as smart as Senator Kerry...

and if Senator Kerry is that easily fooled.......
and if all the other Democrats that support the Iraq War resolution where so easily fooled....
They probably never thought that the Dub's Administration would stoop to use the patriotism that enveloped the country after 9/11 to their advantage to promote the Dub's and the Neocons excellent adventure in Iraq by misleading the American public regarding WMDs.

your either sidestepping the issue or not smart enough to understand the basic question of this thread ,so i will simplify it as much as possible.

all this "deception" is the same conclusion based on the same intelligence that clinton and the dems had in 98 onward(see quotes by clinton, kerry, leiberman..etc. in my previous post.

so if bush is decieving us it is the same deception foisted on us by the clinton administration he is merely continuing it, or there is no deception.

either way the dems are imbeciles, epitomized by hillary clinton holding up the times with the title "he knew!"(using 911 for her own political gain BTW) when if anyone should have known it would be her and her husband!

so which is it? is bush continuing the same deception began by the clinton administration(with the help of ted kennedy lite) or is there no deception?

it is one or the other. same evidence, same conclusions, same players. except for the president.


 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
either way the dems are imbeciles
either that, or they are doing what is politically expedient. They had access to all the same intelligence reports as Bush, they sat on the congressional committees that oversee the intelligence community, they had all the same information as Bush (as did Clinton), and reached the same conclusion as Bush. But that is not why they voted for the Iraq Resolution. They voted FOR it because it was the politically right move at the time Remember ol' Senator Robert "Sheets" Byrd in the well of the Senate, delivering an impassioned speech claiming the "time was wrong" to have a vote on the Iraq Resolution, and that the vote should happen later..what he really meant was the vote should happen after the 2002 election cycle..because then the Dems could vote against Bush and the Resolution en bloc as a political move...instead, they voted for the resolution to look "strong" on national defense fo the 2002 election cycle..now they are in the 2004 election cycle, and they have to oppose Bush on something...well they have pretty much stopped braying about the economy since it is picking up.so they rant about the Iraq situation...and they are now pushing the "Gay Marriage" issue..the flavor of the month political issue..all in an effort to secure votes.

everything the Dems do is politically based...they don't really have anyother reason to oppose what Bush has done in Iraq. What Bush has done is bold, correct, and is beginning the transformation of the Middle East, and other terror supporting states...just look a Libya and how they are cow-towing to the U.S. now....don't make the mistake of thinking the dems oppose the Iraq situation for some higher reason..politics is why they voted fo the Iraq Resolution, politics is why they are against the Iraq Resolution now...
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
84
91
either way the dems are imbeciles, epitomized by hillary clinton holding up the times with the title "he knew!"(using 911 for her own political gain BTW) when if anyone should have known it would be her and her husband!
and clinton tried to warn bush of terrorism, clinton was the one that upped funding for homeland security. when bush got into office, he was in a rush to..... TAKE VACATIONS ON HIS RANCH.
 

syzygy

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2001
3,038
0
76
Originally posted by: Fausto
What Kerry actually said:
Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses.

He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.

That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.

Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament. And that made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the perils of war for themselves rather than keeping the focus on the perils posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal. Indeed, for a time, the Administration's unilateralism, in effect, elevated Saddam in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he never would have achieved on his own, undermining America's standing with most of the coalition partners which had joined us in repelling the invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war.

As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.
his own reasoning is inconsistent, filled with curious omissions, and amounts to nothing more than political sniping. the fact that you
gave more of the quote only provides more ammunition against him. the bush re-election people would thank you if they were not
already familiar with his sorry record.

examples . . . the inspectors were removed in 1998, during clinton's reign, so why doesn't he nitpick about clinton's failure to see to the
inspector's negotiated return ? who cares why clinton failed when the point is to protect your ideological interests.

he misleads when he says that the bush administration did nothing internationally when the issue itself was a topic repeatedly brought
up for debate and brainstorming in numerous security council, european union, and nato meetings, and he still has the gall to mention
resolution 1441 and ignore the basic fact that the u.s. sponsored this resolution in an attempt to build international support.

resolution 1441 proved to be another u.n. failure. blix was preparing to stamp hussein's regime as clean. dr. kay proved blix was a gullible
nitwit - or worse - who would've seen to hussein's moral rehabilitation. with the only international route exhausted, if not renderd disreputable,
what other options existed but to proceed unilaterally with nations who were willing to help. the fact is the administration had international
support, its the numbers and 'quality' of support wasn't to some person's ideologically anal standards.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,413
4,791
126
Originally posted by: syzygy
Originally posted by: Fausto
What Kerry actually said:
Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses.

He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.

That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.

Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament. And that made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the perils of war for themselves rather than keeping the focus on the perils posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal. Indeed, for a time, the Administration's unilateralism, in effect, elevated Saddam in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he never would have achieved on his own, undermining America's standing with most of the coalition partners which had joined us in repelling the invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war.

As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.
his own reasoning is inconsistent, filled with curious omissions, and amounts to nothing more than political sniping. the fact that you
gave more of the quote only provides more ammunition against him. the bush re-election people would thank you if they were not
already familiar with his sorry record.

examples . . . the inspectors were removed in 1998, during clinton's reign, so why doesn't he nitpick about clinton's failure to see to the
inspector's negotiated return ? who cares why clinton failed when the point is to protect your ideological interests.

he misleads when he says that the bush administration did nothing internationally when the issue itself was a topic repeatedly brought
up for debate and brainstorming in numerous security council, european union, and nato meetings, and he still has the gall to mention
resolution 1441 and ignore the basic fact that the u.s. sponsored this resolution in an attempt to build international support.

resolution 1441 proved to be another u.n. failure. blix was preparing to stamp hussein's regime as clean. dr. kay proved blix was a gullible
nitwit - or worse - who would've seen to hussein's moral rehabilitation. with the only international route exhausted, if not renderd disreputable,
what other options existed but to proceed unilaterally with nations who were willing to help. the fact is the administration had international
support, its the numbers and 'quality' of support wasn't to some person's ideologically anal standards.
WTF? Blix would have been right and Kay would now agree.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Forgive me for injecting a few facts in this right-wing circle jerk, but some of this bovine excrement is getting a little deep.

First, note that Galt's quote of Kerry is dated 1997. This was before Clinton's bombing raids did, in fact, "materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes," just as Kerry asked. The second quote, posted by alc, was taken out of context in much the same way as Drudge's excerpts of Clark's comments.

Second, Shad0Hawk's assertion that this "is the same conclusion based on the same intelligence that clinton and the dems had in 98 onward" is false. It is neither the same evidence nor the same conclusion. It was a highly-exaggerated, worst-case conclusion flimsily built by cherry-picking a mish-mash of the most extreme bits and pieces of raw intelligence from pre-1998 Clinton, post-1998 Clinton, and more current intel from Bush's tenure.

Aside from aluminum tubes, uranium from Niger, WMD Winnebagos, WMD-laden UAVs attacking America's heartland, and Powell's big show at the U.N., we have the Bush administration's constant suggestion Iraq was linked to 9/11. That would be 9/11/2001, well after Clinton left office. Unless you think Clinton was prescient, you can hardly claim this was "the same intelligence that clinton and the dems had in 98 onward." It is NOT the same. The conclusions were NOT the same. The claim is FALSE.

More to the point, While Clinton may have believed Iraq still had WMDs after his 1998 raids, he did NOT try to lie to the country and Congress about the intel and he did NOT try to take us to war based on his beliefs. Bush did, end of story.


I now return you to your regular self-gratification exercises. Carry on.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: BDawg
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
"In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior. This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

...and all along I thought Bush had "misled" him, which is one reason he is running for President. Gee, Kerry misled me!
Number of wars started by President Bush - 1
Number of wars started by President Clinton - 0
Number of wars started by President Kerry - 0
Number of wars started by President Bush - 2 and counting.
Number of wars started by President Clinton - 1 - Bosnia - oh and we are still there
Number of wars started by Senator Kerry - 2 - he voted for them
He voted to give president the authority to start a war, not to start a war. There is a difference. How many soldiers did we lose in Bosnia and how many have we lost in Iraq? How much did Bosnia cost and how much is Iraq costing us?
 

syzygy

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2001
3,038
0
76
WTF? Blix would have been right and Kay would now agree.
blix was touting ba'ath 'cooperation' which he found to be improving as the days went by. blix didn't fall upon any of
the detailed findings dr. kay presented to congress in october. not suprisingly, none of those findings were made known
by the ba'ath regime to the u.n. security council. any one of them would've placed iraq in direct violation of 1441, but, above
that, the fact that the ba'ath machine chose to continue to hide their illegal programs justified military intervention. better still,
none of kay's findings were even sniffed by blix nor would they have been discovered by him since he had become too smitten
with saddam's cooperative side to care. ya see . . . blix had turned into a romantic.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,413
4,791
126
Originally posted by: syzygy
WTF? Blix would have been right and Kay would now agree.
blix was touting ba'ath 'cooperation' which he found to be improving as the days went by. blix didn't fall upon any of
the detailed findings dr. kay presented to congress in october. not suprisingly, none of those findings were made known
by the ba'ath regime to the u.n. security council. any one of them would've placed iraq in direct violation of 1441, but, above
that, the fact that the ba'ath machine chose to continue to hide their illegal programs justified military intervention. better still,
none of kay's findings were even sniffed by blix nor would they have been discovered by him since he had become too smitten
with saddam's cooperative side to care. ya see . . . blix had turned into a romantic.
So, what exactly did Kay find? How do you know that Blix hadn't found the same?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
this always brings me back to this basic conundrum..

is Bush is such at idiot, how did he fool somebody as smart as Senator Kerry...

and if Senator Kerry is that easily fooled.......
and if all the other Democrats that support the Iraq War resolution where so easily fooled....
They probably never thought that the Dub's Administration would stoop to use the patriotism that enveloped the country after 9/11 to their advantage to promote the Dub's and the Neocons excellent adventure in Iraq by misleading the American public regarding WMDs.

your either sidestepping the issue or not smart enough to understand the basic question of this thread ,so i will simplify it as much as possible.

all this "deception" is the same conclusion based on the same intelligence that clinton and the dems had in 98 onward(see quotes by clinton, kerry, leiberman..etc. in my previous post.

so if bush is decieving us it is the same deception foisted on us by the clinton administration he is merely continuing it, or there is no deception.

either way the dems are imbeciles, epitomized by hillary clinton holding up the times with the title "he knew!"(using 911 for her own political gain BTW) when if anyone should have known it would be her and her husband!

so which is it? is bush continuing the same deception began by the clinton administration(with the help of ted kennedy lite) or is there no deception?

it is one or the other. same evidence, same conclusions, same players. except for the president.
I haven't any problem believing that Bush continued the same deception of the Clinton Administration. The only difference is that the Clinton Administration didn't use that deception to conduct what seems to be an illegal war like the Dub's Admin did.

 

syzygy

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2001
3,038
0
76
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: syzygy
WTF? Blix would have been right and Kay would now agree.
blix was touting ba'ath 'cooperation' which he found to be improving as the days went by. blix didn't fall upon any of
the detailed findings dr. kay presented to congress in october. not suprisingly, none of those findings were made known
by the ba'ath regime to the u.n. security council. any one of them would've placed iraq in direct violation of 1441, but, above
that, the fact that the ba'ath machine chose to continue to hide their illegal programs justified military intervention. better still,
none of kay's findings were even sniffed by blix nor would they have been discovered by him since he had become too smitten
with saddam's cooperative side to care. ya see . . . blix had turned into a romantic.
So, what exactly did Kay find? How do you know that Blix hadn't found the same?
read kay's report. he lists and describes his findings. towards the end, his interviews with iraqi officials reveal the obvious:
that saddam would have reconstituted his wmd capabilities once he was found to be in full compliance with 1441.

as for blix . . . he found what the 'cooperative' iraqis wanted him to find. remember, the iraqis were expected to be compliant
to the fullest extent and blix was there to confirm that their wmd capabilities were, more or less, non-existent. given the fact
that dr. kay discovered materiel that the iraqis never declared to blix and which blix himself never discovered then this proves
the iraqis did not cooperate, were not intending to cooperate, and blix was being toyed with in the usual fashion.

more importantly, i think, is in the report blix made to the united nations in january 2003 he mentions (under the chemical
weapons portion of his briefing) the thousands of unaccounted for rockets. where are they ?

in other parts of the report, you witness his bureacratic rectitude when he gullibly requests of the ba'athists: "Iraq needs to
make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate." sad.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: syzygy
read kay's report. he lists and describes his findings. towards the end, his interviews with iraqi officials reveal the obvious:
that saddam would have reconstituted his wmd capabilities once he was found to be in full compliance with 1441.

as for blix . . . he found what the 'cooperative' iraqis wanted him to find. remember, the iraqis were expected to be compliant
to the fullest extent and blix was there to confirm that their wmd capabilities were, more or less, non-existent. given the fact
that dr. kay discovered materiel that the iraqis never declared to blix and which blix himself never discovered then this proves
the iraqis did not cooperate, were not intending to cooperate, and blix was being toyed with in the usual fashion.

more importantly, i think, is in the report blix made to the united nations in january 2003 he mentions (under the chemical
weapons portion of his briefing) the thousands of unaccounted for rockets. where are they ?

in other parts of the report, you witness his bureacratic rectitude when he gullibly requests of the ba'athists: "Iraq needs to
make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate." sad.
Baloney. Blix was effectively correct. The only thing Kay found is what we already knew: Hussein wanted WMDs. Wanting something isn't a crime, and it sure doesn't excuse killing thousands of innocent people and wasting hundreds of billions of dollars.
 

Nietzscheusw

Senior member
Dec 28, 2003
308
0
0
It is so funny to witness democratic voters in denial.
Clinton, with his embargo, killed half a million iraqi children.
Bush, Clinton, Kerry are criminal US politicians.
The US foreign policy has been criminal for centuries almost without a pause, serving the interests of the ruthless money-hungry US billionaires.
Same for France (I am french). When will you grow up and face reality like grown-ups?
Shame on you!



Memoirs of a 'Racketeer for Capitalism'
by Ralph Nader


Perusing through a history book as a college student, I came across a jolting declaration in a footnote by one of the most highly decorated soldier of the twentieth century. He said: "I spent 33 years in the Marines, most of my time being a high-class muscle man for big business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for Capitalism."

Those words and more were spoken and written by Brigadier General Smedley D. Butler. At the time I wondered why more was not made in the historical accounts of the early decades of the 20th century.

Well, maybe because General Butler's was too much of an eyewitness account. And he named names. Here is more of what he said:

"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interest in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Center American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interest in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."

The famous journalist, Lowell Thomas, saw fit to introduce General Butler's book "War is a Racket" for a Reader's Digest condensation. The General was no pacifist when it came to defending the U.S.A. He just didn't like bullies and corporate greed sending American soldiers abroad to slaughter or be slaughtered.

"War is a racket," Butler wrote, adding "It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

"A racket," he continues, "is best described, I believe as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

Butler's language was concrete, gripping and emanated from his personal warring experience, as follows. "How many of these war millionaires shoulder a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dugout? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?"

More from Butler. "The general public shoulders the bill. This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones, Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations."

Butler devoted a chapter to naming the corporate profiteers. He wrote about the propaganda to make young men "feel ashamed if they didn't join the Army" and how war propaganda was vicious enough that "even God was bright into it."

The decorated marine general recommended a unique way to "smash this racket." Draft the Big Boys first! "Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our steel companies and our munitions makers and our ship-builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the banners and the speculators, be conscripted -- to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get." That will take the "profit out of war," he wrote, and render the remaining wars for the defense of country only, when presumably most everyone would be willing to sacrifice together.

General Butler passed away shortly before Pearl Harbor. This year, with the cooperation of the Butler family, "War is a Racket" has been reissued in paperback by the publisher, Feral House (P.O.Box 39910, Los Angeles, CA 90039, FeralHouse.com), together with photographs of lasting impression from the 1932 camera records of "war's gruesome glories" in the book "The Horror of It." For $9.95 per copy, it gives today's reader more than just a sense of deja vu. Times have changed and so has the technology of war. But the chicken hawks in Washington, led by Bush and Cheney, are disregarding the advice of many battle-tested officers, retired Generals and Admirals, diplomats and intelligence officials. Instead, they are enlarging their Imperial designs, with the oil and other corporate moguls alongside, that Smedley Butler was highlighting decades ago.

In 1937, Butler asked "Why don't those damned oil companies fly their own flags on their personal property -- maybe a flag with a gas pump on it." Today's reply might say, why should they when they can continue to use the American flag.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
1
0
Originally posted by: Nietzscheusw
It is so funny to witness democratic voters in denial.
Clinton, with his embargo, killed half a million iraqi children.
Bush, Clinton, Kerry are criminal US politicians.
The US foreign policy has been criminal for centuries almost without a pause, serving the interests of the ruthless money-hungry US billionaires.
Same for France (I am french). When will you grow up and face reality like grown-ups?
Shame on you!
When will you grow up and realize that the entire world will never hold hands in a meadow on a sunny spring morning with birds chirping sweet, sweet songs overhead while we sing along?
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
If this is the best liberals can do, saying that the statements of their politicos in high office were "taken out of context", then Bush may very well win in a landslide. Fact is, you can't change what you previously said or did. I guess people are trying to re-interpret the meanings. How pathetic can the pinkos be?
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: Dari
If this is the best liberals can do, saying that the statements of their politicos in high office were "taken out of context", then Bush may very well win in a landslide. Fact is, you can't change what you previously said or did. I guess people are trying to re-interpret the meanings. How pathetic can the pinkos be?
Think about this real hard for a moment.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Why did I post it? Because I think the record should reflect that Kerry thought Saddam had WMD long before Bush came to office, yet he said that Bush misled him, which is why he voted for the war...why did you post to this thread?
Were you aware that your post was misleading and taken out of context?
No...but I have since learned that every speech and quote from Clinton, Gore, and Kerry that shows they believe Saddam had WMD is, "in fact", taken "out of context." Funny how that works.
Now that you know, are you going to change anything? (or were you just being facetious when you said 'no'?)
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: Dari
If this is the best liberals can do, saying that the statements of their politicos in high office were "taken out of context", then Bush may very well win in a landslide. Fact is, you can't change what you previously said or did. I guess people are trying to re-interpret the meanings. How pathetic can the pinkos be?
Think about this real hard for a moment.
What's there to think about? Can you change the past? Can you edit historical facts?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY